Column: Why The Chronicle ran the reparations ad

Academic discourse and intellectual interchange are at the heart of the values of this nation and any university. Especially in controversies, opinionated exchange and open debate must not be sacrificed for comfort.

In its advertising practices just as in its news reporting and editorial pages, The Chronicle strives to be as open and free to as many ideas as possible. The editorial staff has spent many hours this year aggressively debating questions about controversial ideas, advertising and coverage, and has convincingly sided in favor of an open press.

In this spirit, The Chronicle decided to publish March 19 a full-page paid advertisement opposing reparations for slavery.

Yesterday, many people inquired about this decision, and I want to explain our rationale.

From a policy standpoint, The Chronicle evaluates advertisements on a case-by-case basis, with the president of Duke Student Publishing Company, who is also the editor, empowered with the final decision.

David Horowitz and The Center for the Study of Popular Culture sent The Chronicle the full-page ad late Thursday, March 9. Advertising staffers called me, as they sometimes do, to review the ad. News department heads were invited to read the ad, research it and other schools' reactions to it, and weigh in on our decision. These editors all agreed that The Chronicle should publish Horowitz's ideas.

The Chronicle has always been committed to running advertisements regardless of their political content. For example, in November 1991, The Chronicle accepted and ran a full-page ad from Holocaust revisionist Bradley Smith. The advertisement urged people to consider whether the Holocaust ever happened.

Early this semester, The Chronicle ran a four-part anti-abortion advertising campaign. And last semester, the paper published a full-page ad from the Duke Conservative Union urging administrators to continue to prohibit same-sex unions in the Chapel.

Our main criterion for reviewing ads is their factual accuracy-for example, do the ads make libelous or unsubstantiated accusations?

Earlier this year, Smith wanted to advertise again. The ad he submitted directly accused an organization of doctoring a photo but presented no factual evidence to prove it. (The ad showed two different versions of the photo in question, but offered no proof that it was "airbrushed" in the first place, or, just as importantly, that the group in question did it.) As a result, The Chronicle chose not to publish the advertisement.

Horowitz's ad is one of opinion and interpretation that injects a new perspective into a debate that has appeared on The Chronicle's editorial pages.

Although Horowitz's opinions might offend some people, we should be loath to allow the radical nature of his ideas to prevent them from being presented to the community.

Journalist and author A.J. Liebling said, "Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one." In other words, The Chronicle decides who gets a voice in its pages and in our community. The Chronicle believes that in a community dedicated to academic discourse, as many opinions as possible should have the opportunity to be heard.

As The Boston Globe wrote on this matter yesterday, "It is essential [for universities] to be welcoming places for women, minorities and others not among the traditional elites. But the pursuit of diversity cannot come at the expense of open debate, especially in an academic setting. Civil rights cannot exist without civil liberties."

The controversial opinions presented by this advertisement are sure to offend many and should provoke responses from people on both sides of this issue. Unfortunately, students at other campuses have squandered the opportunity to explore the issue and Horowitz's viewpoint, choosing instead to focus on whether his voice should have been heard in the first place.

In fact, the free exchange of ideas and the academic freedom so dear to our university cannot be realized unless all voices, regardless of controversy, are heard. It is equally important that members of the community respond to the ideas in question. As always, The Chronicle is open to publishing letters to the editor, advertisements and, as space is available, columns in response to the advertisement.

To submit a letter or to inquire about a column, call 684-2663 or e-mail letters@chronicle.duke.edu. For advertising information, call 684-3811 or e-mail sales@chronicle.duke.edu.

Greg Pessin is a Trinity senior and editor of The Chronicle

Discussion

Share and discuss “Column: Why The Chronicle ran the reparations ad” on social media.